The unbearable lightness of femininity: how to be a woman in tennis
Serena Williams and Carlos Ramos in the 2018 US Open (Source: Newsweek)
Serena Williams, in this year’s US Open final, completely lost her temper after umpire Carlos Ramos penalized her by taking a point from her. She abruptly threw her racquet on the ground, trampled it underfoot repeatedly with rage, ran back and forth screaming for fairness from God, and left the entire audience, including her opponent Naomi Osaka, completely dumbfounded. She went on a nonstop rant, where she glowered at Ramos and accused him of being a “thief” and “liar”. Near the end of her tirade, she pointed and yelled at him again: “There are men out here that do a lot worse and because I’m a woman you’re going to take this away from me. That is not right. And you know it and I know you can’t admit, but I know you know that is not right”. She wanted to drag him off the umpire seat, grab him by the collar, and give him a good slap. She was subsequently penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct, resulting in her loss. After the match, Williams was unable to calm down at all during the press conference, where she lashed out at Ramos again: “He’s never taken from a man because he’s said thief”. Williams was manifestly exasperated with the differential treatments between men and women.
Instantly, the entire drama rekindles discussions as to how women are treated in tennis and how behaviors are deeply gendered in people’s minds. Although the racial aspect of Williams' outburst has been identified as part of the problem (more to be described in a moment), the gender side of story has been even more hotly debated -- the Williams incident only scratches the surface of issues in women’s tennis. In fact, responses to incidents like Williams’ outbursts within the audience are reflective of, and even reinforcing prevailing societal trends of gendered perceptions. These responses are perpetuated by the presence of femininity and masculinity policing, where the vicious cycle is enforced by the institutionalization of rules of tennis and players’ internalization of gendered roles. Athletes’ intersectionality, such as race and sexuality, also invites discussions due to the additional layer it adds to the definition of feminine identities.
The well-established institution of tennis can be observed in numerous major tournaments, including Wimbledon, one of the largest tournament with its rich history. However, it is indeed the decorum and traditions of these major tournaments that serve as primary reinforcers for certain gendered perceptions. At Wimbledon, all players, male or female, are required to wear white garments from the top to the bottom, and only a slight trim of color is allowed. Players bow to the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and people who are fortunate enough to sit in the Royal Box are required to dress formally. If some of these codes are still interpreted as a celebration of the rich history of tennis, some rules are obviously anachronisms. In this year’s US Open, Alize Cornet, a top player from France, after a short break off court, discovered her shirt was backward and removed her top briefly on court to change it to the right side. However, the umpire noticed it and handed her an astounding code violation for what she did. On the other hand, male players never experience such incidents. Judy Murray, the mother of the two-time Wimbledon champion Andy Murray, acutely observed that only the Women Tennis Association (WTA) has such regulations prohibiting female players to change their outfit, but male players are free to change their shirts and shoes without any sort of penalty under the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), men’s equivalent of WTA (Fisher). Manifestly, there is still this perception in the tennis community that etiquettes apply differently to different genders. These etiquettes are enforced by the institutional rules as well as by players, coaches and spectators who simply comply with the codes.
In addition to these seemingly minor rules of tennis, there are also more structural set-ups that invite discussions. Take the five-set versus three-set concept as an example. It is well-known that in the four Grand Slam tournaments, the men’s game can reach a maximum of five sets while the women’s game has three sets as its cap. When the first conventions were set in the nineteenth century and women were finally allowed in the competitions, they were deemed as too frail to compete in five sets (I.M.). Why do these assumptions of frailty still persist after over one hundred years? Unwittingly, the old Victorian mindset was solidified by modern tennis institutions’ adherence to rules that demean women. Accordingly, the audience was disappointed with the shorter and duller format of the women’s game. Women’s demand for equal play and more center court appearances are in peril after these reactions from the audience, where their matches, characterized by major upsets, a lack of variety of shots, as well a deficiency of notable rivalries, are looked down as less enjoyable than the five-set thrillers observed on the men’s side. Therefore, the intentional institutionalization of certain tennis rules still steers the direction of public opinions and allows gendered perceptions to be more entrenched.
Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Alize Cornet (left to right) (Source: Google Images)
In addition to the external nature of the institution that perpetuates certain perceptions, there is also additional pressure imposed internally, namely by athletes themselves to fit into expected roles of each gender. This is particularly observed in the female identified community compared to their male counterparts. It is true that Serena Williams is a notable exception to this rule, as some observers may claim: Her muscular physique and prominent power differentiates her from the rest of female players and allow her to dominate the realm of tennis. However, unlike Williams, almost all of the female players refrain from establishing this particular “unfeminine” impression on the tennis audience. Agnieszka Radwańska, the highest ranked Polish player, openly recognized how important her look mattered to her despite the importance of muscle training: “Because I am a girl”. Andrea Petkovic, a former top ten player from Germany, also felt the need to stay feminine, especially when she saw pictures of her muscles bulging on court: “I just feel unfeminine. When we grow up we’ve been judged more, our physicality is judged more, and it makes us self-conscious”. Most women are unwilling to trade their inherent femininity for power, strength, or symbols of what they regard as “unfeminine”. The rationale behind this psychological internalization is well-founded: Is ambition more important than being a woman in the first place? Most woman fail to achieve the self-reconciliation noticed in Serena Williams, and as Petkovic pinpointed, societal policing and commentaries are the main causes of such identification, where women feel monitored, judged, and the need to adjust their appearances. Accordingly, players’ comments and appearances are disseminated on social media, where the impression they establish is accepted by the tennis audience and the effect gets amplified. The vicious cycle then compels female players to preserve those “feminine” characteristics they deem as important and discard other goals such as power and precision in shot-making, even if these goals are in accordance with what they should be doing professionally.
Andrea Petkovic hitting a backhand in a grass court tournament (Source: The New York Times)
Self-identification with femininity and masculinity can be complicated, and players’ intersectionality adds an additional layer to the complexity of issues, wherein controversies associated with athletes’ sexuality serve to consolidate the already well-founded gender assumptions. Martina Navratilova, one of the greatest lesbian athletes of all time, came out in 1981 soon after she defected from Czechoslovakia. During that time period, she was at her peak in tennis, with eleven Grand Slam Titles already under her belt. Donna Lopiano, the executive director of the Women’s Sports Association, characterized Navratilova as the hero who made decisions of her own volition: “She basically said this part of my life doesn’t have anything to do me as a tennis player. Judge me for who I am”. However, what ensued as a result of her bravery was not something she originally expected: An enormous cost from public reactions. She lost almost $10 million worth endorsement deals simply because corporative executives were afraid of her having “AIDS” and because of the detrimental influence this possibility would have on the future of the tennis community. After she came out that year, Avon dropped its sponsorship for women’s tennis entirely (Potter). What Navratilova did affected the way all female-identified players were perceived. The extent of these collateral impacts from one woman’s proclamation is astonishing: Are the femininity police simply looking for this opportunity to capture each moment of such disclosure in order to take advantage of women? Maybe that’s indeed true, especially when faced with issues of non-heteronormativity. At the cross-section of intersectionality, in addition to gender, there is also the racial side of the story, which can be observed clearly in the aforementioned Williams' incident.
Mark Knight’s Cartoon of the US Open Final(Left); Naomi Oaska with Serena Williams after the Match (Source: Google)
In the US final, Williams’ petulance overshadowed Naomi Osaka’s accomplishment, who won her first ever Grand Slam trophy as a Haitian-Japanese woman. Mocking the controversial circumstance, Mark Knight from Australia’s Herald Sun created a contentious cartoon to represent all players in the final. Williams’ oversized body, smashed racquet, and unfeminine displays are exaggerated. Her lips are unrealistically large, her ears out of place, and her hair an enormous mess. The author was obviously trying to create a negative picture of Williams through these deliberate designs, accompanied by her blackness. On the other hand, Naomi Osaka’s biracial heritage is reduced to the point where her Haitian heritage is invisible. She seems to be an American blonde, looked from afar. Knight selectively ignores other important aspects of the match. In reality, at the ceremony, Williams, in order to make Osaka comfortable, warmly hugged her and asked the entire audience for a favor: “So congratulations Naomi, no more booing”. However, such caring and friendly moves never seem to be prioritized by the cartoon creator, as if he was intending to paint a purely racialized picture of Williams. In addition, the apparent negation of Osaka’s Haitian heritage simply because her humble personality and outstanding talent were “more associated with Japanese culture” was part of the author’s blatant racialized scheme. By reducing Osaka into a single dimension, Knight effectively demonstrates how demeaning women can be especially prevalent when a racial component is at play with femininity. The negative associations people like Knight are establishing through certain heritages, particularly those of Africans, can be especially problematic when coupled with feminine identities, perpetuating societal stereotypes against women at intersections.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in the 2009 Australian Open (Source: Gentlemen’s Quarterly)
On the other hand, in men’s tennis, non-masculine displays are treated in a very different way, noted both in responses from general audience as well as the players themselves. It is well-known that Roger Federer’s tears are a defining characteristic of him in major tournaments. Andrew Corsello describes such tears as “the most effeminate utterance of the twenty-first century” as well as “boring”. He wants Federer to retain the “mystical aspect” that he is supposed to have. However, Sreemoy Talukar, replying to Corsello, opposes such hasty conclusions by indicating that such tears illustrate that Federer is “a genius because he cares”. Although their conclusions are in direct opposition to each other, they both insinuate what the societal police expects from these male players: They are supposed to be tough, persistent, or almost impassive in the face of defeat. Even if crying supposedly demonstrates Federer still cares about tennis or winning, the assumption lies in the fact that tears are not usually what’s observed in masculine displays. They are only utilized in this circumstance to illustrate that Federer is looking forward to winning more. Additionally, in the platform of discussions for male players, opinions are far more diverse and the superiority of a single interpretation about how males should behave is not observed. Therefore, it is rarely noted that male players have openly felt the need to clarify and reassert their masculinity. For females, the opposite takes place and the perpetuation of societal assumptions is maintained.
Billie Jean King, a tennis champion advocating for equality and freedom for almost her entire life, once said “Be ahead of your time – that’s what you have to do”. However, there is a long way for women’s tennis to go and eliminate all the deeply ingrained prejudices and stereotypes. Tennis institutions, players themselves, as well their intersectionality all serve as formidable barriers to what King is envisioning. Will the female-identified community prevail one day? Eventually, even it’s not foreseeable from this year’s US Open final, which provides important insights into treatment of women in tennis currently.